1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT
NAKREKAL
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2015
PRESENT: Sri D.Kiran Kumar,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
SURYAPET,
FAC JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS, NAKREKAL, NALGONDA DIST.
C.C. NO. 21 of 2011
Between:
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Kattangur Police Station....Complainant
And
A1:Mothkuri Nagesh A2: Puligilla Anjaneyulu
Note: Case against A1 abated since he died. … Accused
This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for State and of Sri K.Lakshmaiah, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record, having heard, stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:-
: J U D G M E N T:
1. This is a case of Ordinary theft which occurred on 6.1.2009 at 14.30hours at Pamanagundla Village, for which the accused charged for the offence U/Sec. 454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code.
2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
On 6.1.2009 at 14.30 hours the defacto-complainant Ravula
Sathyanarayana lodged a written complaint stating that his wife informed to him when he was at Kattangur that when she returned from temple, she found the doors of their home was opened, some unknown offenders committed theft of 3 ½ tulas gold chain and 30 2 tulas of silver ornaments belong to them. Basing on the complaint,
Lw.9 registered case in Cr.No.10/2009 U/Sec. 379 of Indian Penal
Code and during the course of investigation, recorded the statements of witnesses and conducted Scene of offence panchanama and when he was checking vehicles, he caught hold the accused and on their confession, recovered M.O.1 and 2 from the possession of accused
before mediators and on completion of investigation, Pw.7 filed charge
sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec. 454 and 380 of
Indian Penal Code.
3.On perusal of the material, this court took cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code against accused.
4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents furnished as required under Sec.207 Cr.P.C, later, the accused No.2 was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., by explaining substance of accusation and charge U/Sec. 454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty, claimed to be tried.
5.To prove the offence the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW7 and Exs.P1 to P5 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. Pw.1 is defacto- complainant, Pw.2 is victim, Pw.3 and 4 are circumstantial witnesses,
Pw.5 is panch for scene of offence, Pw.6 is panch for confession and recovery and Pw.7 is Investigating officer. Ex.P1 is report of Pw.1,
Ex.P2 is Scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P3 is Rough sketch map,
Ex.P4 is confession cum recovery panchanama, Ex.P5 is First information report.
3
6.On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, accused denied evidence, reported no defense evidence.
7.Heard both parties.
8. Now the point for consideration are as follows:
Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the
accused No.2 for the offence U/Sec. 454 and 380 of Indian
Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.?
POINT:
9.The prosecution alleged that on 6.1.2009 at 2.30 p.m., in the absence of Pws.1 and 2, some unknown persons committed theft of 3 ½ tulas of gold chain and 30 tulas of silver ornaments from their house, as such,on 16.1.2009 Ex.P1 complaint was lodged by Pw.1 and
2. Thereafter, on 27.12.2010 the Sub-Inspector of Police apprehended
A1 and A2 herein with said stolen property and recovered the same in pursuance of the confessional statements of the accused.
10.Pw.1 complainant deposed that he is r/o Pamanagundla Village.
On 6.1.2009 he was not present in the house, he received telephonic call from his wife in the afternoon that some body entered into his house, opened Almirah, committed theft of 3 ½ tulas gold chain, 30 tulas silver ornaments. Pw.2 wife of Pw.1. She also deposed that on 6.1.2009 as 1.30 p.m., she went to Yellamma temple by locking her house main door, she returned at 2.30 p.m., found the door was 4 opened, some unknown persons committed theft of M.O.1 gold chain,
M.O.2 silver ornaments. According to her on the same day of incident, they informed to the police.
11.Pw.3 and 5 are examined as Circumstantial Witness and mediator for Scene of offence conducted by the Sub-Inspector of police, these two witnesses disclosed about their knowledge as to commission of theft in the house of Pw.1 and 2.
12.The prosecution chief examined Pw.4 as auto driver in whose auto the accused No.1 and 2 were travelling and apprehended by the
Sub-Inspector of Police but this witness not turn up to face cross- examination by the defence counsel , as such, his evidence was eschewed.
13.Pw.6 is witness for confession statement of the accused.
According to him on 27.12.2010 police called him to Gram Panchayath office Pamanagundla Village, there the accused No.1 and 2 were present in the custody of the police. Police recovered gold items from the accused. He further deposed that accused belongs to their Village, he knows the accused prior to the incident. Further, Pw.6 deposed that police recorded confessional statement of the accused. Another witness for confession and recovery statement reported died. As such, he was not examined.
14.Pw.7 is Investigating Officer who registered the case deposed that on 16.1.2009 he received complaint, on 27.10.2010 while he was conducting vehicle checking in Kattangur N.H. Road , he apprehended the accused while they were travelling in an auto, he recorded 5 confession and cum recovery panchanama, as such, M.O.1 and 2 recovered from the possession of the accused and also recorded statements of the witnesses.
15.In this case, the prosecution mainly alleged that in pursuance of extra judicial confession of the accused in the presence of Pw.6 stolen property was recovered but as seen from the contents of charge sheet the date of offence is 6.1.2009, it is alleged that on accused No.1 and 2 apprehended with stolen property on 27.2.2010 i.e.,after two years of the incident. Pw.1 and 2 are belongs to Pamanagundla Village.
Further, as per the contents of the charge sheet accused No.1 and 2 were apprehended on National High way whereas Pw.6 mediator for confession and recovery of the accused deposed that Pw.7 Sub-
Inspector of Police recovered stolen property in the premises of Gram
Panchayath, Pamanagundla Village but contents of charge sheet discloses that stolen property recovered near National High way,
Nalgonda X road, Kattangur therefore, the presence of Pw.6 at the time alleged recovery is doubtful. Further, in view of the time gap between date of offence and date of alleged recovery of stolen property, the case of the prosecution not believable, because, in natural course of events no person of the accused after committing theft of gold and silver ornaments stolen keep the same with his possession for years together without disposing them or using the stolen property fro his personal use. So, in these circumstances and in view of the time gap from the date of offence and date of alleged recovery,the accused cannot be punished for alleged offences.
6
Further, date of offence is 16.1.2009, Ex.P1 complaint lodged after 10 days of the incident. There is 10 days delay for filing the complaint, same is also not satisfactorily explained by the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer. So, in view of the doubtful circumstances ion the case of the prosecution , the accused are entitled to get benefit of doubt.
16.IN THE RESULT: The Accused No.2 is found not
guilty for the offence Under Sections 454 and 380 of Indian
Penal Code and consequently, he is acquitted under Section
248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail and bonds of accused No.2 ordered to be
in force for six months U/Sec. 437 (a) of Cr.P.C, thereafter,
they shall stand cancelled. M.Os.1 and 2 which were given to
Pw.1 and 2 for interim custody, the same is hereby ordered to
be made absolute after appeal time.
Dictated to the P.A, transcribed by him, Corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of January,
2015.
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
SURYAPET, FAC JFCM. NAKREKAL
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
Pw.1S.SathyanarayanaDefacto-complainant,
Pw.2S.NirmalaVictim,
Pw.3D.Peddi ReddyCircumstantial Witness,
Pw.4M.NageshwarEschewed,
Pw.5Belli ShankarPanch for Scene of offence panchanama,
Pw.6K.Dharma ReddyPanch for confession and 7 recovery panchanama,
Pw.7P.N.D.PrasadInvestigating Officer.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED
None
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION.
Ex.P1 is Report of Pw.1,
Ex.P2 is Scene of offence panchanama,
Ex.P3 is rough sketch map,
Ex.P4 is confession cum recvoery panchanama,
Ex.P5 is First information report.
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED
Nil.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
M.O.1 is 3 ½ tulas gold chain,
M.O.2 is 30 tulas silver ornaments consists of six items.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
Nil.
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
SURYAPET, FAC JFCM. NAKREKAL
8